i think if he tried to get marion originally instead of jermaine we would have had a good season and sam wouldn't have got fired.

I agree 100%. Even though we still didn't make the playoffs I really liked what Marion brought to the table and wish we would have resigned him/he would have resigned with us. At a time when rebounding/slashing/defence were big holes Marion did those things well. Oh well.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

Bargnani is at best a C. He was at best the 6th best player taken in that draft but used the #1 pick to get. I'm giving BC the benifit of the doubt here because that draft was terrible. (If it wasn't it would be a straight F)

Derozan is a C+. At 9 he's respectable... but he has hardly done or accomplished anything yet. Everyone sees his "potential" and thats great... but there is not a single player that has ever played in the NBA that didn't have potential. Potential is meaningless without results. He still has significant flaws to his game that need to be addressed. Also there were still much better selections after Derozan.

Ed Davis is a B. Does he look like he'll be good? yes. But again has done nothing yet. Better value than Derozan was with a pick at 13.. and MAYBE he best value in his draft at 13.

2nd round picks I could care less about (but when you get a good one... that can be the difference maker)

I'd like you to show me an active GM that would get an A by your standards. I can't find the link but there was an article within the last year that based on production per spot drafting Coangelo is the best active GM at drafting. I'm not sure he is the best with toronto, but giving him a C+ is kind of ridiculous. By that standard the vast majority of GMs would get F's.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

I'd like you to show me an active GM that would get an A by your standards. I can't find the link but there was an article within the last year that based on production per spot drafting Coangelo is the best active GM at drafting. I'm not sure he is the best with toronto, but giving him a C+ is kind of ridiculous. By that standard the vast majority of GMs would get F's.

hold on.. is this not about who he drafted in the past 5 years? Why is it ridiculous? Because you read someone else's opinion elsewhwere that said otherwise?

Just because others have a different opinion of BC's drafting or more specifically the players he drafted, and just because I think he has done an average job, hardly means I think everyone else is an F.

Its hard to compare GMs over 5 years as many have changed, and some of those teams haven't had high picks regularily... but just off hand ones that are better than Toronto:

Thunder: I actually hold Presti in higher regard than BC, but you cannot possibly say Durant + Westbrook + Ibaka > Bargnani + DeRozan + Davis, therefore Presti gets a better grade. Maybe he does, but not for that reason. The Sonics/Thunder had a 2nd overall, 3rd overall and 4th overall pick, all in decent or strong draft years. Durant was a consensus Top 2. There's nothing hard about picking Portland's leftover. Does Presti get a high mark for Harden? How about Aldrich (who was picked ahead of Davis)? Good job on Westbrook and super good job on Ibaka though.

Clippers: Dunleavy wasn't GM when Gordon was picked, nor was he GM when Bledsoe and Aminu were picked. What grade does Dunleavy get for picking Blake Griffin, the consensus #1, in his one year? Bledsoe was a good pick by his successor, Olshey, but what about Aminu? Neither GM was in office long enough to really compare.

Bulls: Again, who are we judging here? Paxson or Forman? Forman was responsible for Gibson (good pick) and Johnson (was dumped on Toronto after two years, so you tell me), what is his grade? Paxson gets credit for picking Rose over Beasley, and a lot of credit for picking Noah, but what about Gordon, who under your standard might not even be the 10th most valuable player in his draft despite being picked 3rd, and Tyrus Thomas, who Paxson traded Aldridge for? Sefolosha was a decent pick, and though he was traded away not too long after, they effectively got Gibson for him.

Portland: Pritchard gets credit for Aldridge and Batum, but Oden and Roy? I can't possible see how Oden is deemed a positive and Bargnani a negative. Oden earned the entirety of a 1st overall rookie scale contract to play fewer minutes over the four years than a typical starter plays in a year. Pritchard struck gold with Roy performing better than anyone thought he would, but then got bit by Roy living up to his injury concerns and Portland is now stuck with paying Roy franchise player money the next three years if the league doesn't create an amnesty clause. Grade?

76ers: Yes, they did a pretty decent job considering their mid/late picks, but the jury is still out on Turner.

You missed probably the best GM (in terms of draft record) of them all: Buford. Might not have been superstars that he picked, but he got very useful players all in the late 1st round or 2nd round.

Thunder: I actually hold Presti in higher regard than BC, but you cannot possibly say Durant + Westbrook + Ibaka > Bargnani + DeRozan + Davis, therefore Presti gets a better grade. Maybe he does, but not for that reason. The Sonics/Thunder had a 2nd overall, 3rd overall and 4th overall pick, all in decent or strong draft years. Durant was a consensus Top 2. There's nothing hard about picking Portland's leftover. Does Presti get a high mark for Harden? How about Aldrich (who was picked ahead of Davis)? Good job on Westbrook and super good job on Ibaka though.

Clippers: Dunleavy wasn't GM when Gordon was picked, nor was he GM when Bledsoe and Aminu were picked. What grade does Dunleavy get for picking Blake Griffin, the consensus #1, in his one year? Bledsoe was a good pick by his successor, Olshey, but what about Aminu? Neither GM was in office long enough to really compare.

Bulls: Again, who are we judging here? Paxson or Forman? Forman was responsible for Gibson (good pick) and Johnson (was dumped on Toronto after two years, so you tell me), what is his grade? Paxson gets credit for picking Rose over Beasley, and a lot of credit for picking Noah, but what about Gordon, who under your standard might not even be the 10th most valuable player in his draft despite being picked 3rd, and Tyrus Thomas, who Paxson traded Aldridge for? Sefolosha was a decent pick, and though he was traded away not too long after, they effectively got Gibson for him.

Portland: Pritchard gets credit for Aldridge and Batum, but Oden and Roy? I can't possible see how Oden is deemed a positive and Bargnani a negative. Oden earned the entirety of a 1st overall rookie scale contract to play fewer minutes over the four years than a typical starter plays in a year. Pritchard struck gold with Roy performing better than anyone thought he would, but then got bit by Roy living up to his injury concerns and Portland is now stuck with paying Roy franchise player money the next three years if the league doesn't create an amnesty clause. Grade?

76ers: Yes, they did a pretty decent job considering their mid/late picks, but the jury is still out on Turner.

as you may note I said: "its hard to compare GMs over 5 years as many have changed". If we have to compare over 5 years, yet some only have 1, 2, 3 years... how can we fairly compare? are they just null and void? Thats why I used the teams... obvioulsy they were not all the same GM for all selections.

secondly if you say the "jury is still out" on anyone... well that applies to Derozan and Ed to... hence the average rating I gave BC because we don't know. Bargnani was clearly a bust of a pick at #1, but BC gets a break for a terrible draft.

My point was, just because I think BC is a C hardly means anyone or everyone else is an F. But alot of teams have much better guys (through the draft in the past 5 years) than the Raps do right now...

1. Here's an idea: just look up who was responsible for what, and compare if there's a big enough sample size. Remember: you're the one picking the draft records to compare to BC. You can't choose the argument and then fall back on the excuse that some of the GMs you want to pick didn't manage for sufficient years, so let's credit them with other people's picks! If you want to compare organizations, fine, but it's no longer relevant to what ezz_bee asked.

2. Obviously when I say the jury is out, I was being nice in not calling them a bust. Otherwise, almost everyone picked in the last five years would be considered "the jury is still out," however good or bad they look right now, as we have no idea how their careers will look 10 years from now.

3. I think you missed ezz_bee's point. I don't think he actually cares whether or not you give other GMs an F grade; he was just pointing out that you might be overly harsh, because there's probably at least 10 far worse GM draft histories of the 30 active right now, so if BC is a C+, they must be Fs. If anything, saying you don't consider the other GMs as Fs only helps his point. Understand? =P And I agree. A C+ to me means there's 11-13 better draft histories out there, and if you can't even find five better GM draft histories without intermingling records, I'd be surprised if you actually find all 11-13.

1. Here's an idea: just look up who was responsible for what, and compare if there's a big enough sample size. Remember: you're the one picking the draft records to compare to BC. You can't choose the argument and then fall back on the excuse that some of the GMs you want to pick didn't manage for sufficient years, so let's credit them with other people's picks! If you want to compare organizations, fine, but it's no longer relevant to what ezz_bee asked.

2. Obviously when I say the jury is out, I was being nice in not calling them a bust. Otherwise, almost everyone picked in the last five years would be considered "the jury is still out," however good or bad they look right now, as we have no idea how their careers will look 10 years from now.

3. I think you missed ezz_bee's point. I don't think he actually cares whether or not you give other GMs an F grade; he was just pointing out that you might be overly harsh, because there's probably at least 10 far worse GM draft histories of the 30 active right now, so if BC is a C+, they must be Fs. If anything, saying you don't consider the other GMs as Fs only helps his point. Understand? =P And I agree. A C+ to me means there's 11-13 better draft histories out there, and if you can't even find five better GM draft histories without intermingling records, I'd be surprised if you actually find all 11-13.

1. yeah does that even sound remotely reasonable... I'll stick to what I did (I'm not falling "back on an excuse" I mentioned I was using the teams, not GMs, right from the start. Not my problem you don't read.

2. If "jury still out" means bust, then BC is F... meaning I was overly nice giving him a C

3. Where did this point system come from? was it posted initially? are we ranking or grading him. I understood grading? In any case I find it hard to believe a C is "harsh"?